And, as I explained originally (and maintain), the early questions were not apt and would not be accepted at all if it not for the fact that they constitute soldiers for the winning army.
at best, it was terrible communication.
It was terrible communication. And, as is often the case with social dynamics, the part of the communication that allowed you to get away with this response to this particular paragraph is not the paragraph itself but rather the surrounding context which sets the bounds around how it is appropriate to interact with M.Vassar.
the surrounding context which sets the bounds around how it is appropriate to interact with M.Vassar.
Maybe that’s the source of the confusion. I was responding to komponisto.
There isn’t confusion, there is disagreement and social objection. Yes, your text written to komponisto. The conversation about Vassar’s communication and how it changes the bounds of how much leeway must be granted to those acting against Vassar in the discussion thread remains the same.
Aha. Yes, I think there was confusion. I wasn’t focused on the “people stuff” parts of your comment, and I wasn’t thinking of it as something adversarial. Entirely my mistake—there were enough markers in your comment to see that’s what you were getting at.
I was mostly trying to disabuse komponisto (and future readers) of a falsehood.
Aha. Yes, I think there was confusion. I wasn’t focused on the “people stuff” parts of your comment, and I wasn’t thinking of it as something adversarial. Entirely my mistake—there were enough markers in your comment to see that’s what you were getting at.
Ok, I’m not entirely sure I understand (since I already unchached the conversation—ie. I remember what was said but not what I believe is believed about belief) but I’ll take your word for it!
And, as I explained originally (and maintain), the early questions were not apt and would not be accepted at all if it not for the fact that they constitute soldiers for the winning army.
It was terrible communication. And, as is often the case with social dynamics, the part of the communication that allowed you to get away with this response to this particular paragraph is not the paragraph itself but rather the surrounding context which sets the bounds around how it is appropriate to interact with M.Vassar.
Maybe that’s the source of the confusion. I was responding to komponisto.
Maybe that’s the source of the confusion. I was responding to komponisto.
There isn’t confusion, there is disagreement and social objection. Yes, your text written to komponisto. The conversation about Vassar’s communication and how it changes the bounds of how much leeway must be granted to those acting against Vassar in the discussion thread remains the same.
Aha. Yes, I think there was confusion. I wasn’t focused on the “people stuff” parts of your comment, and I wasn’t thinking of it as something adversarial. Entirely my mistake—there were enough markers in your comment to see that’s what you were getting at.
I was mostly trying to disabuse komponisto (and future readers) of a falsehood.
Ok, I’m not entirely sure I understand (since I already unchached the conversation—ie. I remember what was said but not what I believe is believed about belief) but I’ll take your word for it!